The Treasure System is Unfair and Needs to be Fixed

[Clarke]

I see a lot of complaining about "fairness" and "lost income" and yet none have quite attempted to post a suggestion that is "fair" and achieves even close to the objectives of the admin for the treasure or color stocks. He doesn't want them to be "fair". He wants people to actually have to DO SOMETHING to get those bonuses. Those alliances who have spent a lot of time building their communities have a better chance of getting a bonus? Good. They deserve it. They did something. 

 

You have a way to do something about it too. Sure there's going to be someone who replies back with "it's not worth it" to war for it. K, cool story bro. You know what isn't "fair"... getting a bonus for doing nothing.

 

I think the model is quite "fair" myself. 

 

Its simple, guys. You have two choices.

 

1. Don't get a bonus.

2. Go take a treasure.

The model isn't fair, it's stupid and doesn't do anything the Admin wants it to do.

If the Admin wanted war over color stocks he would revert it back to the original color stock formula back in the Alpha period. He doesn't do that, instead he adds pointless changes that make no real difference. 

Everyone knew it was a crap system before it was added, we don't have to accept it as being a part of the game that can't be reverted since it can be and should be reverted. 

 

I'm not sure what the term to describe it is but this change adds additional content that doesn't improve the system. It's just a change for the sake of a change.

[Prefontaine]

The model isn't fair, it's stupid and doesn't do anything the Admin wants it to do.

If the Admin wanted war over color stocks he would revert it back to the original color stock formula back in the Alpha period. He doesn't do that, instead he adds pointless changes that make no real difference. 

Everyone knew it was a crap system before it was added, we don't have to accept it as being a part of the game that can't be reverted since it can be and should be reverted. 

 

I'm not sure what the term to describe it is but this change adds additional content that doesn't improve the system. It's just a change for the sake of a change.

 

Woah. Diabolos and I on the same page. That's a strange book.

[Clarke]

Woah. Diabolos and I on the same page. That's a strange book.

I won't delve too much into that but I take the same approach for every page, as to why you're on the same page I have no idea why and I don't expect you to be on the same sort of pages in the future. 

[Ace]

Seems this is the hottest topic so far lol.

[Prefontaine]

I won't delve too much into that but I take the same approach for every page, as to why you're on the same page I have no idea why and I don't expect you to be on the same sort of pages in the future. 

 

[Prefonteen]

I usually dont chime in too often, but here goes.

 

Why exactly are we attempting to influence player-driven politics through the addition of game mechanics that create an unfair advantage? I saw a claim in this thread that the addition of these treasure bonuses will stimulate diplomacy and war by virtue of the threat of alliances gaining too big an advantage.This could not be further from the truth. The past year has seen a variety of wars, sparked by diplomatic ambition, rivalries and/or incidents. None of these have been related to treasures or stock bonuses. The political environment in the game is *already* thriving, with intrigue and animosity.

 

I would argue that this change only serves to stagnate politics. Let's look at the situation which we have seen unfold in the past week. Most-all of the top 10 goes to war. Those who sit out (in this case, Rose), by virtue of sitting out, already receive huge advantages over the rest of the world. This same pattern was seen in the last war: Covenant sat out, gained dominance, then used that capacity to mount an aggressive war. Technically speaking, Rose would now be in position to do the same (leaving all politics aside).

 

Now, in addition to that 'advantage' so to speak, Rose has been able to use the preoccupation of the rest of the top 10, to raid and haul in treasures without diplomatic repercussions. This further enhances its advantage. What does this technically mean? Staying *away* from war has now become more advantageous than it was pre-update, as it allows a clever party to exploit this preoccupation.

 

The argument that accumulation of too many treasures will paint a target on one's back is incorrect. Speaking as an alliance leader, this is an OOC annoyance to me, but the diplomatic and military cost of any action against a major alliance over *treasures* certainly would not weigh up to the benefit of the treasure. More importantly, from an OOC vantage point, I would refuse to allow my playstyle to be influenced by an update like this. The more likely path of action will be that we simply make an executive decision to move our alliance to yellow. That's the new meta at a glance, and speaking OOC, that means that this update fails to deliver on its objective, and actually makes the game more bland.

 

I would argue for a rollback of this update. There was and is nothing wrong with Orbis politics. If as was stated, this update was intended to add a dimension to politics (and/or influence it), it should be removed, as politics should remain player-driven.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

 

The Heavens will punish those who design to claim treasure greedily.

 

So you will be punished? That's fine by me.

 

- snip -

 

10/10. A roll back is in order.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Ibrahim

[Kemal Ergenekon]

More cities are unfair. People with less cities suck.

More infra is unfair. People with more infra earn more.

Tanks are unfair. Richer people can buy more tanks.

Planes are unfair. They kill tanks and ships with impunity.

Score differences are unfair. Why should anyone be better than me?

 

And the list goes on and on...

 

Life's unfair.

[Sam Hyde]

More cities are unfair. People with less cities suck.

More infra is unfair. People with more infra earn more.

Tanks are unfair. Richer people can buy more tanks.

Planes are unfair. They kill tanks and ships with impunity.

Score differences are unfair. Why should anyone be better than me?

 

And the list goes on and on...

 

Life's unfair.

 

For your infra and cities and tanks and planes and score differences, you work for.

 

For treasures, you're at the mercy of the almighty Random Number God.

 

Skill is fundamentally different from luck, and if you can't get this, then I can't help you further.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Deathstroke

[Aerys Targaryen]

More cities are unfair. People with less cities suck.

More infra is unfair. People with more infra earn more.

Tanks are unfair. Richer people can buy more tanks.

Planes are unfair. They kill tanks and ships with impunity.

Score differences are unfair. Why should anyone be better than me?

 

And the list goes on and on...

 

Life's unfair.

 

Cities and infra impacts score and we have war range based on score to make it fair.

You are comparing the way game is designed, implying it is unfair and trying to belittle those who say an update is unfair.

[Alex]

For your infra and cities and tanks and planes and score differences, you work for.

 

For treasures, you're at the mercy of the almighty Random Number God.

 

Skill is fundamentally different from luck, and if you can't get this, then I can't help you further.

 

You're only initially at the mercy of an RNG, however you can easily increase your odds if you're looking to acquire treasures. There's a treasure specific to each color; if you moved your alliance to Pink or Brown you'd seriously increase your chances of receiving a treasure randomly, and also there's no alliance penalties on either of those colors. If you get one treasure in your alliance on Pink or Brown, that's a 3% bonus for everyone in your alliance, just by being tactical and smart.

 

Furthermore, there's treasures specific to continent, you can encourage nations in your alliance to switch to continents that have less nations in order to increase your odds.

 

Finally, if you want to get treasures, you can fight for them. Maybe you're a smaller alliance, and you're not going to take a Top 10, but treasures spawn in lower score ranges (generally better alliances have higher average scores). If you can be strategic and active you could steal treasures from other small alliances, and form diplomatic agreements with larger alliances for protection.

 

There is equality of opportunity here, not equality of prosperity. Not to mention this bonus is generally not too significant unless you do have an abhorrent amount of treasures in your alliance, in which case if you all (the players) decide that's unfair, you absolutely have the ability to work together and do something about it. 

 

The fact that you're here bickering about how important this bonus is to you is evidence that we've made a more dynamic and in-equal system that relies on you (the players) to balance and figure out. And even if you can't figure it out yourselves in the short term, you're protected by the fact that half the treasures will respawn automatically every 30 days.

[LordRahl2]

>Reasons to roll Rose intensify

[Wayne]

How are they spawned, % chance to be spawned on a player account?

 

If so, would a better idea be to have the % spawn on alliances rather than player accounts and then have another RNG to determine which player account in that alliance gets the treasure spawn? 

 

Or make use of those NPC accounts (or create some more) and have the treasures spawn on them and let us go get them ourselves.  Take away the player bonus and just have them as alliance (or colour) wide bonuses.

[Belisarius]

I would argue that this change only serves to stagnate politics. Let's look at the situation which we have seen unfold in the past week. Most-all of the top 10 goes to war. Those who sit out (in this case, Rose), by virtue of sitting out, already receive huge advantages over the rest of the world. This same pattern was seen in the last war: Covenant sat out, gained dominance, then used that capacity to mount an aggressive war. Technically speaking, Rose would now be in position to do the same (leaving all politics aside).

 

Now, in addition to that 'advantage' so to speak, Rose has been able to use the preoccupation of the rest of the top 10, to raid and haul in treasures without diplomatic repercussions. This further enhances its advantage. What does this technically mean? Staying *away* from war has now become more advantageous than it was pre-update, as it allows a clever party to exploit this preoccupation.

The problem with your argument is that it's true regardless of the treasures. If we extend this principle outwards, there is literally no economic reason for any alliance to war with one another. All alliances can live in peace with one another and grow unhindered. PW has no scarcity of resources or land, so there is literally no rational reason to fight. Everyone can grow indefinitely. 

 

But why are PW wars waged? They're waged because of a mixture of bravado and vengeance, or righting past wrongs and showing who's on top. It's not based on economics or any scarcity of resources. Wars are fought because humans love to dick wave. Because we're stupid monkeys, that's why. 

 

Do you think that's gonna change because of some treasures? Do you think alliance leaders are going to stop scheming, backstabbing, and allying coalitions to gain power? You can't honestly believe that.

 

There's nothing stopping this before the treasures were altered, and it isn't going to change now. And besides, I'm sure someone is thinking of a scheme to bring Rose down. Don't worry, wars aren't done >_>

[Oblige]

 

Rose was able to acquire it's treasures diplomatically, not "because everyone else was distracted." 

[Moreau]

Rose, tresaures? Small aa's getting salty?

*sips tea*

[Pfeiffer]

I'm just gonna raid Rose after this war ends, it will fix everything.

[Belisarius]

I'm just gonna raid Rose after this war ends, it will fix everything.

 

Problem solved ヽ( ｡  ãƒ®ï¾Ÿ)ノ 

[MRBOOTY]

If we were to do something like that, I think a more flexible system would work better.i.e. having it so the chance of a treasure spawning in your alliance decreases as your alliance becomes stronger. That, of course, still makes smaller alliances much bigger targets, but if we're talking limiting treasure spawning in larger alliances I think something along those lines would be best.

This is the best idea. Bigger alliances would be the only ones able to buy the treasures, so they would be getting an advantage in that sense, but smaller alliances would be given and chance to make money and be relevant.

[Krillian]

This is ripe. How does this make the game stagnant? It just adds another variable to the game. Isn't this how you make it interesting? Hell we have only had this change for a week or two and panties are in a knot. Yes a majority of large alliances are fighting a war, and aren't getting in on the treasure action, but that will change.

 

And maybe it isn't worth it to spend military resources on raiding alliances with treasures so YOU can have the advantage. But it is worth it to keep the advantage away from others.

 

Small alliances also have a chance to profit from the treasures by selling them to large alliances (make more money than keeping them anyways). Large alliances then have a way to get ahead without having to work hard at avoiding wars. They can instead work hard at the politics and micro wars that might be spawned from this change. It's not a fix all product but it's a step in the right direction I feel.

[Prefontaine]

Oh. So the people profiting the most from this are for it? What a twist!

[Guest]

Oh. So the people profiting the most from this are for it? What a twist!

 

I wasn't profiting anything when I suggested this change. Just sayin'

[Azaghul]

Some of the alliances at war had the open slots to do what Rose did.  I don't think there's anything wrong with how that situation worked out.

 

I like the dynamics this creates.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Azaghul

[Rozalia]

So you will be punished? That's fine by me.

 

 

Not when it's in the correct hands Shaytan. 

[Krillian]

Oh. So the people profiting the most from this are for it? What a twist

 

 

Of course we are because we worked hard the last week to take advantage of the new system instead of whining about it. But in 2 months when you manage to stockpile more then us we will still be for it.

 

All I'm hearing right now from everyone other then Mrbooty, Cynic and a few others, is crying that noone but Rose took advantage of this immediately after the update. I have yet to see a good reason why it should be rolled back.

 

We have payed good amounts to small alliances already in exchange for treasures that might disappear in 2 weeks. How does this harm the small guys in any way? They probably would make a fraction of the amount we payed them in the time they had it from the bonus or someone would have raided for it. Oddsquad has raided more then anyone else it looks like, and they aren't very big.

 

Everyone has these big ideas about how it's going to change the dynamics of the game, but until we try it there is no way to know what will happen. I just see fear of change and jealousy.